Was Protect the Pope really divisive? Or was it rather those whom Deacon Nick believed were undermining the teachings of the Church?

Catholic bloggers sometimes have a tense relationship with bishops (PA)

Protect the Pope was always feisty, either in defence of the Church against secularist attack, or against enemies of Catholic truth and discipline within the Church

I was very sorry indeed to see that the website Protect the Pope has closed down, or rather has been closed down. A press release has been issued by Bishop Michael Campbell of Lancaster in explanation of his action in doing so:

Back in 2010 Deacon Nick Donnelly set up the Protect the Pope website/blog, as a direct response to the campaign of hostility and ridicule from sections of the media and lobby groups against Pope (Emeritus) Benedict XVI’s historic visit to the UK in September of that year.

Protect the Pope was particularly successful at this time in articulating a strong defence of the Petrine Office, the Catholic Church, and its teachings against certain secularist and anti-Catholic activists. In the last couple of years, however, Protect the Pope appears to have shifted its objective from a defence of Church teaching from those outside the Church to alleged internal dissent within the Church. With this shift, Protect the Pope has come to see itself as a ‘doctrinal watchdog’ over the writings and sayings of individuals, that is, of bishops, clergy and theologians in England & Wales and throughout the Catholic world….

It is my view that bishops, priests and deacons of the Church – ordained and ‘public’ persons – are free to express themselves and their personal views, but never in a way that divides the community of the Church i.e. through ad hominem and personal challenges. Increasingly I have felt that Protect the Pope, authored as it is by a public person holding ecclesiastical office (an ordained deacon), has, at times, taken this approach its own posts – but has also allowed for this by facilitating those who comment online.

Now, I want to make it clear that what follows is not to be interpreted as a criticism of Bishop Campbell. An ordained person is generally taken as speaking for the Church: Protect the Pope, however was always understood as Deacon Nick’s personal initiative. This never seemed odd. It seems to me that a married permanent Deacon is generally understood as having more independence than a celibate priest: he is more “in the community”, since he has to support himself: he is a kind of bridge figure between the laity and the priesthood. I certainly didn’t think of him as being a spokesman for his diocese; I didn’t even know what his diocese was. Bishop Campbell, however, did, and clearly took the view that one of his deacons had become something of a loose cannon: he therefore in effect suppressed his blog.

My own view is that in Protect the Pope, Deacon Nick exercised a particularly effective apostolate, one which I am sorry — both for his own sake and for that of the Church he so effectively served through his blog — has been taken away from him. As I say, I do not intend to criticise Bishop Campbell’s decision, the logic and integrity of which I understand perfectly: “bishops, priests and deacons of the Church”, as he says, “– ordained and ‘public’ persons – are free to express themselves and their personal views, but never in a way that divides the community of the Church, ie through ad hominem and personal challenges.”

Now, you might say that not only ordained bloggers but all Catholic bloggers should be guided by those words. I am also very well aware that this column frequently criticises Catholic individuals, including senior bishops, whom I have myself seen as fomenting “internal dissent within the Church” by their failure to defend the teachings of the Church, and sometimes by their positive intention, as it has seemed to me, to undermine those teachings.

So I ask Bishop Campbell, with the greatest respect, to ponder the following question: is it divisive to attempt to rebut, even through “ad hominem and personal challenges”, someone who has himself personally and publicly challenged the words or actions, say, of a particular Catholic bishop who has made some declaration designed to make clear the uncontested teaching of the Catholic Church? Is it not this person rather than a Catholic blog which challenges him, who is dividing the community of the Church?

Consider the example of a rebuttal by Deacon Nick of a challenge to a recent statement made by Bishop Egan of Portsmouth, a challenge emanating from an official source. Deacon Nick challenged the challenge, which he regarded as incompatible with Catholic teaching: he named names: he responded with an “ad hominem and personal” challenge. It seems to me that there ought to be someone in the Church whose vocation is to do that.

Bishop Egan had said: “When people are not in communion with the Catholic Church on such a central thing as the value of life of the unborn child and also in terms of the teachings of the church on marriage and family life – they are voting [this was addressed to MPs] in favour of same-sex marriage – then they shouldn’t be receiving Holy Communion.”

He explained that rather than being a punitive measure, the denial of Holy Communion is “always an act of mercy.” It is done, he said, “with the hope and prayer that that person can be wooed back into full communion with the Church.”

“Nobody is forced to be Catholic,” Bishop Egan had continued. “We’re called by Christ and He’s chosen us, it’s a free choice. We live under the word of God. It’s not my truth, it’s God’s truth. One would hope that in that case it would encourage someone to come back to seek communion with the Lord with the truth and say I’m sorry I got lost.”

In response to this excellently well-expressed and wholly orthodox episcopal teaching, a senior Church official wrote to Catholic MPs and peers to assure them there were “no plans to deny Communion to those who supported gay marriage”. This was then confirmed by an even more senior official. These interventions, it seems to me, were perfect examples of what Bishop Campbell calls “alleged internal dissent within the Church”: the “internal dissent”, in other words definitely exists: there’s no “alleged” about it.

My respectful question for Bishop Campbell (who I am sure has thought and prayed deeply over what he has done) is simply this. In his defence of Catholic belief and practice in this case, was it really Deacon Nick who was being divisive? Or was it actually those who took it on themselves officially to respond on behalf of the bishops?

The accusation that Protect the Pope had come to see itself as a “doctrinal watchdog” may well be true: to which my answer is that that is exactly what we need in the current condition of the English Church. It’s a dirty job: but frankly, someone has to do it, and Deacon Nick did it forcefully and well. He has consistently defended the unity of the Church by defending the truth of its teachings, against those who have undoubtedly undermined it. I hope very much that he will be allowed to continue to do so.

COMMENT POLICY

The Catholic Herald comment guidelinesAt The Catholic Herald we want our articles to provoke spirited and lively debate. We also want to ensure the discussions hosted on our website are carried out in civil terms.All commenters are therefore politely asked to ensure that their posts respond directly to points raised in the particular article or by fellow contributors, and that all responses are respectful.We implement a strict moderation policy and reserve the right to delete comments that we believe contravene our guidelines. Here are a few key things to bear in mind when commenting…

•Do not make personal attacks on writers or fellow commenters – respond only to their arguments.•Comments that are deemed offensive, aggressive or off topic will be deleted.•Unsubstantiated claims and accusations about individuals or organisations will be deleted.•Keep comments concise. Comments of great length may be deleted.•We try to vet every comment, however if you would like to alert us to a particular posting please use the ‘Report’ button.Thank you for your co-operation,The Catholic Herald editorial team

Cardinal Bechara Rai will welcome Pope Francis to the Holy Land next week

Dr William Oddie is a leading English Catholic writer and broadcaster. He edited The Catholic Herald from 1998 to 2004 and is the author of The Roman Option and Chesterton and the Romance of Orthodoxy.

Please provide a link to a copy of the Bishop’s statement.
I could not find the Abp’s statement – which he did not make public as far as I could find.
There were only some spokesmen (not the Abp) who made statements to the press.
If you have the actual statement, please provide.

Henry

I suggest that you just look up Voris in Wikipedia where you will find multiple links – including, I now find, to the fact that the bishop of Scranton refused him access to church premises for a talk.

MIKE

I have no idea who wrote the article in wiki. Perhaps the Scranton Bishop was the topic of a program ?

Again, please send link to official statements from Archbishop Vigneron of Detroit.
He never personally made his statement public at all as far as I can find.
He never condemned the Voris programming as far as I can find.
In fact he wanted them to register with the Diocese if Voris wanted to use the name “Catholic”- per a diocese spokesperson to the media.
(Apparently they have special forms to fill out in that Diocese..)

As I stated ChurchMilitantTV covers controversial topics from time to time,
but nothing that contradicts the Doctrine of the Faith.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, please provide link to the specific program, and state what you believe to be contrary to the Doctrine of the Faith.

Athelstane

…while the laity at large and those bishops who see their responsibility (among others) to grow the Church…

Except, of course, it is *not* growing – quite the opposite. Certainly not when you remove Polish immigrants from the picture.

And perhaps there’s a linkage between that development, and the mindset that refuses to more clearly proclaim Church teaching – the hard parts as well as the rest. At some point, someone has to look at why what’s been done in the Church in Britain for the last five or six decades or so hasn’t been working, and wonder why.

Louis Armstrum

A very good question, dear Andrew after the first called. But who do you say I am?

Louis Armstrum

With one tongue you say “There is no slander in my posts” with another you call people heretics, liars, anti-Catholics, schismatics. Get behind me, Satan.

With tongue you say “I have never grumbled about the teachings of Christ or His Church” with another you say “many Bishops do not teach the Faith”, grumbling about His Church. Get behind me Satan.

MIKE

Never grumbled about Church or Doctrine.
Truth is truth, whether you like it or not. (Slander is an untruth.)

Are you now making up your own Doctrine of the Faith ?
The Church does not teach all Bishops are saints or even all going to Heaven. The Arian heresy was supported and promoted by quite a few Bishops. Read your history.
A few Bishops alive today aided and abeted in child abuse – again a violation of teachings of the Church.

Get the log out of your own eye first.
And never DECEIVE by misquoting the HOLY SCRIPTURE again.

Louis Armstrum

Never used scripture to deceive, nice deflection there. Why do you pretend to be catholic?

“There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an
abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.” (Proverbs 6:16-19)

You say you never grumbled about the Church in plain words, but in plain words you say “many Bishops do not teach the Faith”, which is a lie spoken with haughty eyes and a lying tongue and you refuse to prove it, and it is grumbling besides, and slander against Christ’s bishops. It is a public attack on their authority and meant to provoke dissent about Christ’s shepherds and division in Christ’s Church and sow discord amongst brothers. It is meant, as all your posts are to rend the Body of Christ Himself, whom who spit upon with your faithless deceit. Slander is an untruth, and calling others dishonest, liars or deceitful is untruth. Calling others masons without proof is slander. You are also not in a position to pronounce my fellow catholics as heretics or schismatics. The arian heresy is an example used by SSPX to support their own dissent, but I do not think you are truly one of them. Either prove that “many Bishops do not teach the Faith” or stand as a liar and a slanderer.I did not deceive by quoting Holy Scripture though no doubt the Word of God offends you. Your words against the bishops breaks the 8th commandment, and “Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 John 2:4).

Again you ignore the allegation that you upvote your posts to make it appear catholics support you, a clear attempt at deceiptful behaviour which we both know you are guilty of. You say the bishops have aided and abeted in child abuse but you seek to molest their very souls.

Atilla The Possum

You have the description of ‘The Church of Nice’ down to a tee, Nicholas Bellford.
I’m sick of the Church of Nice.
These show-boater Trustees are nasty people. Harsh, but true. If they are reading this and are currently blowing their proverbial gaskets with rage and indignation at my sheer brass neck at describing them as such…tough.
Reading your post, I’m afraid their attitude towards your you and your input makes that plain as the nose on your face. You’ve hit a nerve with them. They don’t like it.
In many establishments, attitudes just like theirs have allowed falsehoods, corruption, bullying, micromanagement, abuse and deception to fester like a bubo.
I’ve witnessed such as this myself and the fallout is not pleasant. It’s not so much a car-crash but a motorway pile-up!
Think sex abuse scandals, Barings Bank, the Jimmy Savile scandals, Lehman Brothers, Madoff, the recent Garda Siochana scandals… and the rest of the sorry mess.
If anyone thinks my comparisons have gone too far, ask yourselves this question: what is the difference between taking a bar of chocolate from the corner shop without paying for it and filling out false expenses claims?
None. They BOTH break the Commandment Thou Shalt NOT steal!
If you hold fast, keep your powder dry and hang fire, there is change in the air.
The Church of Nice will stop at nothing to cling to their deluded status and they don’t care a flying figroll who stands in their way and gets hurt or chucked out.
You are not alone. Courage, my friend.

Surely part of the issue is that by appointing oneself as a ‘doctrinal watchdog’ , you are almost by definition yourself straying from doctrinal orthodoxy, if one is not in a position of teaching authority?

Andrew Milhurst

What is your name?

MIKE

The lack of accurate knowledge of normal Church teaching – even asking Laity to read the Bible AND the CCC is not there in most Diocese.
Check the majority Bishop’s Diocese web sites, their Parish web sites, even Church bulletins – and lack of encouraging literate Laity to study these at home. Most people will tell you they rarely or never hear this from the pulpit.

Many (but not all) Bishops disregard Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict, and Pope Francis requests that we do so.
They don’t bother to pass it on to the majority of the Laity.
You will find some that do but not the majority.

“….. let us ask ourselves if we have actually taken a few steps to get to know Christ and the truths of faith more, by reading and meditating on the Scriptures, studying the Catechism, steadily approaching the Sacraments.” Pope Francis, May 15, 2013.

The Word of God does not offend me. You are not God.

Louis Armstrum

Call me anything you like. If you do not like my name, which is plain to see, perhaps you could give me a new one? That was one of Man’s first tasks, to give names. How about Zaphenath-paneah, the reviler of secrets, a name once given to a humble man by a great man.

Louis Armstrum

Hallo there, MIKE incognito.

Louis Armstrum

At least you no longer deny the lying and slander. Nice that you have moved from condemning many bishops to the majority of bishops! Just wow. And convenient that you supply NO PROOF, just your own opinion. You have slandered the bishops of the Church. Get behind me, Satan.

MIKE

You are lying again. Your quote – ” At least you no longer deny the lying and slander.”

Slander is lying. I have lied against no one to the best of my knowledge. And I own YOU no explanation.

MIKE

Thanks Dave, very helpful. Will save link in my “favorites”.

Tony Flavin

Such a comment can only come from a ‘Catholic’ post-Vatican II, such is the mental confusion and almost total ignorance of the laity.